At present it is quite difficult for airlines to sell slots. This means that airlines
often operate planes that are fairly empty simply to keep their slot. The
Commission is proposing to make it easier to sell slots to other airlines.

The EC’s “Better Airports” package was published in December 2011. On slots it said:

“The Commission proposals introduce market based mechanisms for the trading of slots between airlines in a transparent way, as well as measures to ensure that existing capacity is used by airlines – by raising the threshold on the “use it or lose it rule” from 80%-85%.

The proposed measures on slots would allow the system to handle 24 million more passengers a year by 2025. They will be worth €5 billion to the European economy and create up to 62,000 jobs over the period 2012-2025

Five European airports are currently operating at capacity: Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, London Gatwick, London Heathrow, Milan Linate. On current trends this could increase to nineteen key airports by 2030, including for example Paris CDG – with very significant consequences for delays and congestion.”

• A new study (Feb 2010) has suggested that investing in high-speed rail can bring various benefits, but should not be marketed as a major part of efforts to combat climate change.

The study, ‘The Future of Interurban Passenger Transport’ by the by the Swedish transport economist Per Kågeson, calculates the effect on emissions from building a new high speed line connecting two major cities 500 kilometres apart. It says there is no reason to prohibit investment in high-speed rail on environmental grounds as long as the carbon gains outweigh the emissions during construction, but the greenhouse gas savings are sufficiently small that it would be wrong to justify such investment as a solution to climate change.

• Report (June 2009) “Rail First” for AirportWatch Scotland. Many flights from the county’s two main airports, Glasgow and Edinburgh, are short-haul and could be replaced with fast trains – reducing the need for those airports to expand. (12 pages, pdf)

Before the UK commissions a high speed rail network, we should ask ourselves some big questions. Does high speed rail provide a lower carbon form of transport than its alternatives? How many of its passengers switch from lower carbon forms of travel? How has the DfT calculated the figures? What assumptions has it made? Will high speed rail only increase the numbers travelling, and will the runway slots just be used for long haul instead,

The report exposes carbon offsetting as ineffective and damaging, and is released to mark the launch of FoE’s Demand Climate Change Campaign for a strong and fair global climate agreement at UN talks – which culminate in Copenhagen in December. FoE exposes carbon offsetting as a
con which is failing to reduce, and in some cases is even increasing, carbon emissions. The UK Government is actively promoting the increased use of offsetting at the UN climate talks, including proposing a plan to carbon offset by buying up forests – which will not stop deforestation and will cause significant social harm to the people that rely on them. FoE press release at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/offsetting_report_02062009.html 2.6.2009

With more people buying carbon offsets to try and compensate for the carbon dioxide produced from their flights, the effectiveness and justification for these offsets is increasingly being questioned. The Observer article discusses the problems. The Observer – Carbon offsetting Ripoff?

An article in the Sunday Times reveals that offsetting schemes involving tree planting can take a century to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, making them very ineffective as a meals of reducing the climate changing effect of emissions. Offsetting your carbon footprint takes decades

Defra has announced (Jan 2007) new standards for carbon offsetting schemes. Of the estimated 60 offsetting schemes available, only four meet the government’s new gold standard, and none of these are being run in the UK. The 4 companies which at present meet the standards are:

More and more journeys are now becoming faster, and more hassle-free, by high speed rail within Europe than the same trip by plane. To find details of train timetables etc, see www.raileurope.co.uk or http://www.seat61.com

The new ‘Open Skies’ agreement between the EU and America could double the number of passengers flying the Atlantic. This would mean an extra 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted every year. Article by John Stewart, for the Ecologist magazine. 2007 Open Skies article by John Stewart

Some older, almost historic, briefings:

Briefing on the OEF report on aviation’s contribution to the UK economy

The original OEF study, published in 1999 by the Department for Transport. It claimed that the aviation industry brought huge benefits to UK economy, but didn’t factor into its calculations the tax-breaks the aviation industry receives through tax-free fuel etc, nor the cost to the country of the environmental damage done by air travel.AirportWatch OEF Briefing (November 2006)

The December 2006 OEF report took the same line. A study, carried out for AirportWatch in February 2007, found that the claimed economic benefits of air travel in the Government’s Progress Report on the Future of Air Transport published in December were largely based on a consultant’s report paid for by the aviation industry. Despite growing concern about the impact of aviation growth on climate change, the Progress Report confirmed the government’s determination to press ahead with airport expansion, justifying this on the grounds of economic benefit.AirportWatch study on OEF report (Feb 2007)

Briefing on the Pre Budget Report 2006 – rise in APD

The Chancellor announced that the doubling APD will be effective from 1st February 2007 . The intra-EU economy rate will rise from £5 to £10 and the non-economy rate from £10 to £20. The long-haul economy rate will rise from £20 to £40 and the non-economy rate from £40 to £80. AirportWatch’s Air Passenger Duty Briefing

Friends of the Earth briefing on the Aviation White Paper review (Nov 2006)

Friends of the Earth produced a media briefing paper which examined the growing impact of aviation on the environment and the need for urgent Government action to tackle it through a variety of measures, including abandoning plans to allow a huge expansion in UK airports. It also comments on a variety of issues surrounding aviation and climate change, such as plans to include aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme, the use of bio fuels and carbon offsetting proposals. Friends of the Earth briefing on the Aviation White Paper review

Including Aviation in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme

While the overall strategy has received backing from the Commission, Council and Parliament, the details of the text still need to be hammered out by EU lawmakers. The contentious issues in the proposal are:
• The Commission’s decision not to include international flights in the scheme until one year after intra-EU flights (in 2011), and;
• the level of the cap that airlines will be subject to and the system for distributing allowances.

Stop Stansted Expansion have produced a response, presented to Uttlesford District Council in August 2006, about the very severe impacts which the airport’s operations were already having on the community and on the lives of the people who live there, as a result of growth at the airport. It describes stress, anxiety, noise pollution, light pollution, traffic problems and breakdown in community life.Erosion of the Community – from the SSE website

Air quality around airports

Air pollution continues to be a significant threat to human health and the environment in Europe, especially in airport adjacent regions, from both planes and local surface transport. Local air pollution is regulated by several legislative documents on EU level. This briefing gives information about air pollution and possible solutions.Briefing on Air Quality around airports

The Government is proposing large-scale expansion of airports, which are often surrounded by significant areas of ancient woodland. If the proposals were to go ahead in areas such as Stansted, Manchester, Rugby or Swansea then we would be facing a massive loss of ancient woodland.

Just how damaging to the climate is air travel? Is it really much worse than going by trian? Or by car? And just how much carbon dioxide does my flight to Paris, or to New York, or to Rome produce, relative to my car use, or gas and electricity comsumption? Good figures are hard to find, but we try and throw some light on the subject.